FEDERAL HIGH COURT IKEJA: ROTTEN REGISTRY SPOILS FINE COURT

In June 2009, the Federal High Court, Ikeja Division, Lagos State was created. It was a development much welcomed by legal practitioners and litigants alike in Lagos State, especially those residing in Mainland Lagos.



Before 2009, all matters for the Federal High Court in Lagos State were heard and determined at Ikoyi on the Lagos Island, a situation mainland lawyers and litigants found irksome.


The creation of the Ikeja Division was with the active support of the Lagos State government which provided the land for the court and actually funded the building. The court room and her appurtenances including the Judge’s Chambers and the administrative section is a bungalow; simple but elegant. The inside of the court house is particularly attractive, cool, neat and well lit, having an ambience that stimulates good delivery from lawyers.


Happily the master of the court, the presiding judge, Honourable Justice Stephen Jonah Adah is an asset on the Bench therein. Calm, meticulous and sound, many lawyers who have appeared before him hold him in high esteem.


However the paradise of the Federal High Court Ikeja has an incubus, residing there and her ointment is sullied by the revolting presence of a dead fly floating in it.


The great minus of the otherwise beautiful court is her registry and the Bailiff Section. Our investigations show that as things stand, it would be foolhardy for any lawyer seeking urgent reliefs for his client, to approach the FHC Ikeja for succor. This is because of a combination of a tardy, unreasonable, and inefficient registry and an extortionate, bribe-mad bailiff section that would ensure that adjudication of matters by the judge do not start quickly.


There have been many instances when getting processes filed in the registry become simply hellish. Lawyers or their litigation clerks have been known to visit the court’s registry many times just for their papers to be ‘initialed’ as they are told that the officers to do the initialing “is not on seat.” At times litigation clerks who come to file papers have been rebuffed and told to bring their principals to do the filing.


After scaling the big hurdle of filing processes at the Registry, the lawyer or clerk now faces the equally daunting trouble of dealing with the messengers of the court (bailiffs) who however love demanding and collecting ransome fit for kings in the name of effecting service of processes.


Worse, these shameless court officials demand gratification to do their official jobs as a matter of right, while the lawyers are reduced to begging or negotiating for a reduction in ‘bailiff tariff.’


Really incredible things happen at the FHC Ikeja. Sometimes filed processes either get “temporarily lost” sometimes for weeks or sometimes it takes the processes several days to travel from the Registry (less than twenty meters away) to the court, with the effect that hearing in cases are stalled as the necessary papers already filed by counsel days, even weeks before, are not found in case files in court.


In a chat with this reporter over all the misdeeds of the court officials, the most senior administrative staff, Mrs. N. Omotosho, the Deputy Chief Registrar, admitted to the reality of the very poor attitude of her subordinates whom she accused of being unrepentantly unprofessional in their attitude and who are money mongers.


She however promised that the situation would soon change as the presiding judge had determined to ensure the removal of any staff found guilty of misconduct.

NEW LEGAL YEAR "SHOW" IN LAGOS!

LAWYERS KICK AGAINST STATE BARS CREATION BAR PROPOSAL

BIG PAIN; IKORODU BAR CRIES OUT AGAINST JUDGE

OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL - STILL AGAINST HIGH COST OF LITIGATION IN NIGERIA. WHO ARE THEJUDGES NOW WORKING FOR?

By my letter of 15th January 2008, I protested against high cost of litigation in the Court of Appeal. This followed the prescription of increased filing fees and the more objectionable imposition of penalty for late filing of court processes under the new Court Rules.


Refer also to my other two letters respectively of 29th of June 2010 and 19th July 2010 by which I protested high filing fees in the Court as well as penalty for default of filing processes. In the former letter, the President, after a review of my protest agreed that collection of N5000.00 (Five Thousand Naira only) with respect to filing of Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court was illegal and directed that the collection be stopped forthwith. In its place, the President directed that the appropriate fee of N500.00 (Five Hundred Naira only) be collected henceforth.


In the latter of the two letters, which relates to my personal matter, I demanded for abrogation of penalty for late filing as well as a refund of the penalty I was made to pay in respect of the matter under reference. I concluded with threat of an action in court in the event of your failure to effect the refund and stop further collection of the penalty.


I was to learn soon after my letters that the rules were being reviewed. I was rather optimistic that my various protests might be considered in the review exercise and necessary changes reflected such that the practice of collecting penalty would be discontinued. I, therefore, held up my threatened action in court.


It will be recalled too that the letter of …………………..relating to Chief Thaddeus Inegbedion v NDIC, was a demand for a refund of N4,500.00 being excess payment for filing of Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Registry of the Court had refused to agree accept our view that we were only liable to pay N500.00. It however, agreed to refund the excess when it was confronted with relevant instruments. Yet, to date, no refund has been made despite repeated demands since 2008.


I have had the opportunity of looking at the new rules since they came into force in April 2011 and I regret to observe that the fees have not been changed. Rather, they remain at the commercial rate before the amendment.


I also observe with great trepidation that the penalty imposed without due authorization under the old rules have also been retained. I am therefore, impelled to continue with my protest against a commercial rate of fees as well as imposition of penalty for late filing not only in the Court of Appeal but in our courts generally under the rules of court.


Let me once more state the crux of my objection. Justice is a social service by the State to the citizenry. It is not yet known to be the intention of the State to treat it otherwise and begin to sell it to seekers of it as a commercial commodity. Even if the State had formed that intention, let it first be expressed in an Act of the National Assembly as a national policy for the Courts to enforce.


From my little knowledge of the law and practice of constitutionalism, and from case law, no member of the executive or of the judicial department can, in the exercise of his ministerial powers, lawfully impose a financial burden on the citizen of this country. And since the prescription of fees as well as the imposition of a penalty is a financial burden, it should be left for the representatives of the people in Parliament, (here in Nigeria, the National Assembly) to do. It amounts to a usurpation of the legislative function of the State for the Judge to enact a rule to extract money from the citizen.


I still stand convinced that under our system, it is out of order for the Chief Justice of Nigeria, The President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge of the High Court of the State, s the case may be to make a rule in the exercise of his ministerial powers, for purpose of raising revenue for himself or for the State.


I stand convinced, if the large body of our case law is still anything to go by that unless the Constitution has directly authorised him to do so or indirectly, by permitting the National Assembly to enact a law authorising him to do so, none of these principal judicial officers of the State can lawfully enact any such provision.


And also going by the case law, since the constitutionality or legality of the action is being raised, the law requires that it is desirable to exercise caution in enforcing it. That the Court has chosen to ignore this position of the law since January 2008 and continue to enforce the provisions thereby collecting money that may ultimately turn out not to have been appropriated to it, or the State, it might be necessary to submit the matter to the Court officially for judicial review.


In considering this, I stand convinced, until I am proved otherwise, that the revenue realisable by the Court from fees and penalty is not money appropriated by an Act of the National Assembly to the Court. And if it is ultimately so adjudged, the collection of the fees and penalty will fall into the realm of ‘corrupt practices and abuse of power’ within Section 15(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 which “The State shall abolish”.


Since 2007 when the new regime of fees and objectionable penalty came into operation under the now defunct rules, I have had cause to discuss with several of my colleagues whose only courage lies in grumbling and gossiping but have failed to talk out. The various words they use to describe the new innovation are not what should be allowed to go into the print. But just a few that can be accommodated have it thus:- “These people” (i.e. the Justices of the Court of Appeal) “are not ready to work. They are after money” (or revenue) for the Court” or “They want money for welfare” or “If you want to get the silk, you have to be careful, these are the people who will comment on you” ……etc…..


It is sufficient to say from the comments that the Bar has been cowed down. And this is not good for both the law and the society. An unguarded Bench with a docile Bar will certainly impact negatively on law and society because the former does as it likes thereby unwittingly perpetrating the culture of impunity that Oguntade, JSC (Rtd) spoke against with passion in his various valedictory/thanksgiving lectures sometime ago.


With the benefit of watching the process of enforcement of the rules during proceedings in court, I can safely say without equivocation that the main concern now seems to be revenue generation. So, I hear, from the temple of justice (?), “Have you paid the penalty?”. I hear “How much did you pay?”. And I see the President of the intermediate appellate court of my otherwise great country picking up a receipt of payment from counsel, and with a calculator, calculating the sum due as penalty to confirm what counsel paid. And my spirit revolts within me. I witness this with utter disgust.


Until now, I had always said that money and justice cannot work together. One will pollute the other. It gives me great anxiety that I am witnessing it at my time. God who made the Judge only commanded him to “Hear the causes…” not count or calculate money; in open Court (?).


In a recent encounter at the High Court of Lagos State where collection of penalty has also become the driving force in the administration of justice, Jose, J. refused an application for waiver of penalty as well as extension of time to file a final written address out of time on account of the non payment of the penalty. Most interestingly, the learned trial Judge acknowledged that the motion, both for waiver and for extension, was not opposed by all the other counsel including Assistant Chief Legal Counsel from the Ministry of Justice of the Lagos State. According to her, “…although the motion is not opposed,…there is no provision under the rules for waiver”.


I recall that late Chief Fola Akinrinsola died in a motor accident a few meters to the Court in Ikeja. I have seen a lawyer collapsing at Court premises; some rushed out of Court to the hospital where he spends about two weeks. Obviously, it will take the litigant an extension of time to get himself properly back before the Court. But from the situation today, such litigant can not be heard on why he defaulted. He must pay that penalty to get justice because “There is no provision for waiver under the rules”. Sir, this is totally unacceptable. And I will keep saying it until the position is either reviewed by you or the Government of Nigeria tells us that justice is no more a social service but is now up for sale.


There are many other reasons why a party or counsel may not be able to file processes within the time allowed by the rules or ordered by the court. Such reasons are no less human than the reasons that may prevent a court or Judge from sitting occasionally or delivering judgment within three months (3) after address or still from releasing copies of judgments to parties within seven (7) days.


As stated above, even under the British system of Sovereignty of Parliament as against Nigeria’s Supremacy of Constitution, the authorities show that only Parliament can legislate to place a financial burden on the subject or sanction what is viewed as a contravention. It is an aberration that under our more superior system, a member of the third arm of government will in the exercise of a ministerial power unilaterally legislate an imposition of a financial burden on the citizen seeking justice in our courts. It will be a test of our practice of constitutionalism.


We can not all lower the standard. I expect that a judge who declines waiver because “no provision for it under the rules” should equally quip whether there is a provision under the Constitution or any law made pursuant to it enabling the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge of a State to impose and collect a penalty, and yet deprive a citizen of this Country his fundamental right to a fair hearing for failure or inability to pay such illegal penalty.


I see a serious contradiction under our system where a judiciary that has been known to rule out statutory provisions as well as executive actions which encroach on fundamental right of the citizen to a fair hearing can make a subsidiary legislation by way of rules of practice and procedure in our courts, even without an enabling provision, to take away the right to a fair hearing. I weep for my country, I weep for myself. And I weep for generations coming behind.


Perhaps, I should like to remind us that Nigeria is a republic which set out for a land “where no man is oppressed”. It is dangerous for any society to allow its judiciary to turn itself to an instrument of arbitrariness and oppression. It is also dangerous to allow the judiciary to evolve a policy that will invariably promote corruption to some level that might not have been contemplated. Experience has shown since the new rules in 2007 that the scope of corrupt practices have widened and level increased. It will be share hypocrisy for any member of the Bench and the Bar to pretend not to know this.


In the light of the foregoing, I still request by this letter that you review the rules by removing the provisions relating to fees and penalty which are fast becoming a hindrance to access to court and justice.


TAKE NOTICE that if after this letter, the rules are not changed I shall take out a process in a court of law for appropriate remedy including an order for account for all money collected so far since 2007 when the new regime of fees came into force.


In taking this course, I have not failed to consider the odds that I might be confronted with generally. But I look at an example from what a woman did in the Holy Bible when she rose to a challenge before her people “…and so will I go in unto the King, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish”, See Esther 4:16.


Yours faithfully,


Johnson O. Esezoobo.


08033200595

CHIEF G.O.K AJAYI: THE CELEBRATION OF AN ICON AT 80

May 29 of every year is always special for Chief Godwin Olusegun Kolawole Ajayi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (1978 set). The reason is not farfetched; that is the day of his birth.

Most times, the legendary lawyer, famous for his forthrightness, principled stand on issues, consistency, courage, sharp intellect, mesmerizing advocacy and progressive politics marks his birthdays quietly, celebrating with only his family and a few other intimates. However the 2011 edition was not to go the quiet lane; largely due to the insistence of his wife, children, friends and admirers.


Called to the English Bar (Middle Temple) in 1955 when he was only 24 years old and to the Nigerian Bar two years later, Ajayi, more popularly known by his initials “G.O.K.” has had a tremendously successful legal practice over the decades and is one of the very few practitioners whose pre-eminence in the profession has moved them beyond the portals of mere respectability to the shores of awe- inducing reverence.


In 1978, twenty-one years after he was called to the Nigerian Bar, G.O.K was made a silk, bagging the award of Senior Advocate of Nigeria in company of twelve other legal practitioners to wit:- Obafemi Awolowo, Remi Femi-Kayode, T.A. Bankole-Oki, E.A. Molajo, Kehinde Sofola, Richard Akinjide, Olisa Chukwura, Nwakama Okoro, Mudiaga Odje, P.O.Balonwu, B.O. Nwabueze and Augustine Nnamani.


Of this set, only Richard Akinjide, B.O Nwabueze and G.O.K. himself are alive today. Six years after his call to the Nigerian Bar, G.O.K. became a part time lecturer at the Nigerian Law School, till 1971. In the course of those seven years (1963 – 1971), well known jurists and lawyers today like former Chief Justices of Nigeria, Muhammed Uwais, Alfa Belgore, Idris Legbo Kutigi and Honourable Justice Umaru Abdullahi sat at his feet as students. From around the middle of the 1960s, G.O.K. Ajayi started earning fame as a legal luminary and his reputation waxed stronger down the four successive decades.


So brilliant and trusted as a progressive and competent lawyer was he that he was the foremost legal warrior in the Second Republic for the Unity Party of Nigeria led by the immortal Obafemi Awolowo. He was the lead counsel in the famous 12 2/3 case Awolowo vs Shagari (presidential election dispute) in 1979 and was lead counsel in the equally famous 1983 political cases like Adekunle Ajasin v Omoboriowo (Ondo State Gubernatorial Election Dispute), Bola Ige v Victor Olunloyo (Oyo State Gubernatorial Election Dispute).


Earlier in 1981, he had successfully handled the landmark case of AbduRahman Shugaba v Minister of Internal Affairs. This was a curious case in which Shugaba the minority leader in the Borno State House of Assembly was suddenly arrested and deported to Chad by the National Party Nigeria controlled Federal Government on the grounds that the politician was never a Nigerian citizen.


Aside from Chief G.O.K himself, Nigeria has been blessed with many other extra-ordinary legal practitioners, with late Chief F.R.A. Williams S.A.N. and late Chief Gani Fawehinmi S.A.N.,the irrepressible human rights activist being perhaps the best known.


Yet these two lawyers deeply respected G.O.K’s abilities. Senior lawyers still recount with awe the many battle royales especially between the 70s and the 90s between Williams, better known as F.R.A. and G.O.K, for their respective clients. The formidable F.R.A., the quintessential legal mind also known as “Timi the Law” was said to always find G.O.K, though his junior at the Bar by at least 14 years, a formidable, unsparing and deep cutting opponent.


As for Chief Gani Fawehinmi S.A.N., famous for his “battering ram” advocacy style and always in trouble with the military authorities, G.O.K was easily the preferred counsel to defend him in peak trouble in 1989. Thus G.O.K. was there for him in 1989 before the Transition to Civil Rule and Miscellaneous Tribunal headed by the late justice Anyagbunam.


G.O.K. led dozens of other famous lawyers including Mr. Alao Aka-Bashorun, Chief F.O. Akinrele S.A.N, Dr. Olu Onagoruwa, Chief Mike Ozekhome and Mr. Femi Falana to defend Gani.


Another famous client of G.O.K was retired General Zamari Lekwot who with some other members of the Atyap community of Kaduna State was charged with murder before a Special Military Tribunal headed by one Justice Okadigbo over the Zango Kataf Disturbances in 1990. Against all odds, G.O.K’s fearless and brilliant advocacy led to the discharge and acquittal of the embattled General Zamani Lekwot and his kinsmen. Thereafter a grateful Atyap Community unanimously and joyously conferred the honourary title “ACHOK ATYAP” on G.O.K. ‘Achok Atyap’ means the “The Guardian of Atyap.”


In 1993, G.O.K. was on hand to lead a battery of seasoned lawyers to defend the business mogul turned politician, Moshood Kashimawo Abiola against the charge of Treason preferred against him by the General Sani Abacha regime for demanding the actualization of his mandate to rule Nigeria as president after winning the June 12 1993 Presidential election which was annulled by General Ibrahim Babangida’s regime.


To mark his 80th birthday, a Holy Communion Service of Praise and Thanksgiving was organized at the St. Peter’s Church (Faji) Ajele Street, Lagos. The service commenced at about 1.00p.m on 29th May 2011 with three principal officiating ministers in charge to wit:- Rt. Rev. E.A. Awosoga, the Bishop of Ijebu Ode, Rt. Rev. Ranti Odubogun the Bishop of Ife and the very Rev. (Dr.) P.R. Oludipe, the Provost of the Cathedral Church of Our Saviour, Halowojoda, Ijebu Ode.


The church was filled to the brim and over-flowed with worshippers. The most prominent was the foremost traditional ruler in the land of the Yoruba, South West, Nigeria, Oonirisa of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuade, Olubuse II. In the entourage of the monarch were his wife, about a dozen other Obas and Chiefs. Other dignitaries in the church included Mrs. Tokunbo Awolowo-Dosunmu, Otunba Subomi Balogun, Mr. Tunji Kola Awodein S.A.N., Professor Elebute, Mr. Tunji Gomez, Mr. Yinka “Afro” Fayokun and other notables in the business world and the professions.


A longish affair, the church service ended at about 4.30p.m and the joy of the occasion was shared with Chief Ajayi by his immediate family, in-laws, kinsmen, grandchildren, associates, professional colleagues and numerous other well wishers.


A reception at the Lagos City Hall followed after the service. Again the venue was jam-packed by happy gaily dressed people. Proceedings did not start until about a quarter after the hour of five in the evening but nobody including the Ooni, appeared eager to leave.


Otunba Subomi Balogun was the Chairman of the occasion, while Chief Femi Adeniyi-Williams acted very competently as the unofficial Master of Ceremony. Professor Elebute, a childhood friend of G.O.K supervised the cutting of Chief Ajayi’s 80th Birthday Cake. All these elders and many more had very kind words for Chief Ajayi, attesting to his candour, integrity and humaneness.


The celebration of the 80th birthday of the legal luminary did not end on the 29th May. It continued the next day at the Lekki Oriental Hotel, Victoria Island, Lagos, courtesy of the G.O.K. Ajayi & Co. Alumni Association, headed by Mr. Tunji Ayanlaja S.A.N.


The Alumni organized a classy cocktail for their old principal. It was virtually a lawyers-only affair. This reporter saw at least one former World Court Judge, Judge Bola Ajibola, at the occasion. There was also at least one judge of the Supreme Court of Nigeria present, Honourable Justice George Oguntade.


There were at least three judges of the Lagos State High Court present: Abiru J., Okunnu J., and Opesanwo J. As for Senior Advocates of Nigeria, they numbered about thirteen, including Supo Sasore, Professor Kasumu, Tokunbo Williams, Ebun Sofunde, Tayo Oyetibo and Layi Babatunde.


There were many other notable lawyers present such as Mrs. Ayo Obe, Mrs.


Titi Kareem, Mrs. Mary Bassey, Mr. Stephen Kola-Balogun, Mr. Chijioke Okoli, Chairman NBA Lagos branch and Mr. Dave Ajetomobi, former Chairman, NBA Ikeja branch.


The masterful Master of Ceremony was an elated and nattily dressed Mr. Tunji Ayanlaja, assisted by Mrs. Ayo Obe. Predictably, choice wines and other drinks flowed and tasty ‘small chops’ were also in abundance. Taking of photographs was also a constant.


Seated with his wife Mrs. Margaret Ajayi and Judge Bola Ajibola in a corner of the room, Chief Ajayi quietly soaked in the atmosphere, listening with a rather studied detachment to the rain of accolades that speaker after speaker were pouring on him with regard to his humanity, strict professional discipline, dedication to duty, industry, knowledge, courage and sartorial elegance.


One scene that those present would not quickly forget was when Adesina Ogunlana, unabashedly gave Chief Ajayi a full length public prostration after rounding up his speech and subsequently dissolved into tears. Earlier on in his speech he had spoken glowingly of Chief Ajayi’s solid support for him in terms of financial, moral and free quality defence of him before the Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers between 2003 and 2009 for his activities as the Editor of this magazine.


Many at the occasion wondered at the rather curious sight of a supposed “man of war” weeping like a baby! And in public too! After all the speeches, Chief was called upon to give his response. Once on his feet to make his speech, any seeming appearance of frailty left him.


In his charming, quietly penetrating voice, the veteran practitioner thanked the organizers of the event, shared some insights and ended with a declaration that he, despite his advanced years, was not yet ready to hang up his wig and gown. This attracted an ovation.


After an alumni gave the vote of thanks, Mr. Ayanlaja drew the curtains on the event saying, “We hope to see you around when we celebrate Chief G.O.K. Ajayi’s 90th birthday.”


People who wanted to leave at that point left and those who wanted to stay back to enjoy the unending flow of wine and soft music, satisfied themselves.

DISMISSED MAGISTRATE TO FACE PROSECUTION SOON?

Mr. Wilberforce Meigbope, formerly Senior Magistrate with the Lagos State Judiciary is today a sad, broken man.
A few weeks ago, the man would have been described as an imperial magistrate, who was all-in-all in his rather humble post at the magistrate court in Isolo, Lagos.
The judicial emperor’s reign however came to a sudden and rude end on Thursday 28th April 2011 when a small delegation led by Mr. T.A Elias Deputy Chief Registrar (Admin) paid his highness a visit.
According to geckos, Emperor Meigbope was already holding court when the Elias team arrived.
He quickly rose to receive the team in his office. The leader of the team gently handed over a letter to Meigbope. Some of our invisible geckos resident in every magistrate and judge’s chambers, almost fell off their perch when the “bomb” hit Meigbope.
According to the geckos, Meigbope exclaimed and shouted when his eyes confronted the contents of the letter. He raised his hands up in shock and fell off his chair, much to the bewilderment of his visitor, who encouraged him to take his fate like a man. Geckos saw the emperor breaking out in hot sweat, hold his head in his hands and valiantly struggle to keep back tears from badly reddened eyes.
Thereafter Mr. Elias took his leave but not before instructing the registrar of the court to adjourn all pending matters.
The news of the dismissal of the “Alaseju” magistrate soon floated out. Some stunned and bemused lawyers in court now went in to pay the ex-magistrate condolence visits.
However going by the information reaching us from ever trusty geckos, the dismissal of Meigbope from office is not the end of the story. Plans are said to be afoot by the authorities to ensure his arrest and prosecution for alleged acts of demanding and receiving bribes when he was in office.
The action is said not to be targeted at Meigbope alone but his alleged co-extortioners and bribe takers in the court, to wit the court registrar, the prosecutor and some lawyers who acted as go betweens and bribe-brokers.
If the plan succeeds, observers say that it will deter other corrupt magistrates and their court staff from continuing in the despicable act of bribe taking.

LAGOS SACKS NOTORIOUS MAGISTRATE

Thursday, the 28th April 2011 is a day, Mr. Wilberforce Meigbope, formerly of the magistrate court 3 Isolo will never forget in his life.
It was a day that he was forced out of his exalted office of magistrate and booted out of the employ of the Lagos State Judicial service.
His dismissal, critics say, so richly deserving, came late. According to our sources, the fallen magistrate in the last five years had no less than forty-eight petitions against him before his employer.
Well known, feared and held in contempt by many lawyers who had practiced before him, Meigbope became a law unto himself. Brash, rude, queer, ignorant, pompous and out rightly abusive to lawyers and litigants in court, he over-stepped his bounds about two years ago, when he rushed out of his court room at the Botanical Gardens Magistrate Court, Ebute Metta to confront some policemen who were taking away a suspect. That move proved costly for Meigbope as the policemen descended on him, beating him to near stupor.
From Ebute-Metta, Senior Magistrate W.A.O Meigbope was transferred to Isolo, with his reputation for being very corrupt intact. He was known as a magistrate who collected bribes for granting and approving bail to accused persons brought before him.
Our investigations reveal that one usual method of ensuring that accused persons or their relatives pay bribes was for Meigbope to hand down stiff or impossible conditions upon the granting of bail.
If for example a man is accused of stealing money or chattels of a plastic company, Meigbope would demand that one of the sureties of the accused must be a manger in the very company or a senior staff of another plastic company! Please see the case of MM/C/67/10 COP vs HILARY OKEY & 9 ORS OF 27/10/2010 (date of arraignment) in the Meigbope court.
And if a person is charged with visa fraud or forgery, Meigbope would demand that one of the accused person’s sureties must be a “commander in the immigration service”! (Please see the case of MM/C/32/2011 COP vs OBINNA OKOR (M) OF 12/4/2011 (date of arraignment). Of course faced with the terrible bail conditions, the affected persons and their relatives often played ball. As soon as the bribes demanded for and negotitated upon via middle men were paid, the bails met Meigbope’s approval.
By the time, the very last petition (of Prince Tunji Adejare a legal practitioner, wrongly and heedlessly labeled and arrested at the Magistrate court Isolo by the police upon the orders of Meigbope as a quack lawyer) reached the authorities, Meigbope’s days in the Judiciary became numbered.
In reaction to the strongly worded petition (please see cover Story Exhibit), the Lagos State Judicial Service Commission summoned Meigbope to appear before a Disciplinary Panel.
The petitioner also gave his testimony before the panel likewise Adesina Ogunlana, in his capacity as General Secretary NBA Ikeja branch. Two members of the Public Training and Complaints Committee of the Lagos State Judiciary told the Squib that in the last six years, petitions against Meigbope were always coming up at every sitting of the PCTC.
As the news of the sack of the notorious magistrate spread, the reaction of people was “good riddance to bad rubbish.”

CJN VS PCA TUSSLE TURNS SPIRITUAL...COURT OF APPEAL ORGANISES PRAYER FOR PRESIDENT

DISBARRED: THE END OF THE ROAD FOR JIDE ALADEJOBI?

DISBARRED: THE END OF THE ROAD FOR JIDE ALADEJOBI?

IN THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARYCOMMITTEE OF THE

BODY OF BENCHERS

ON TUESDAY THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011.

COMPLAINT NO: BB/LPDC/057

BEFORE:

1.  HON. JUSTICE UMARU ERI OFR                                CHAIRMAN

2.  HON. JUSTICE Z.A. BULKACHUWA OFR                      MEMBER

3.  HON. JUSTICE ABDU ABOKI JCA                               MEMBER

4.  HON. JUSTICE A.S. DAHIRU CJ, SOKOTO                   MEMBER

5.  HON. JUSTICE KULU ALIYU, CJ, ZAMFARA                  MEMBER

6.  CHIEF A.S. AWOMOLO, SAN                                     MEMBER

7.  CHIEF N. NWANODI, SAN                                        MEMBER

8.  CHIEF R.A. LAWAL RABANA SAN                               MEMBER

9.  CHIEF M.O.O. NWAMU                                             MEMBER

10.              NIYI OWOLADE ESQ. AG OSUN                          MEMBER

11.              CHIVE I. KAAVE AG BENUE                               MEMBER

12.              EDWARD G. PWAJOK AG PLATEAU                     MEMBER

BETWEEN:

NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION-                          COMPLAINANT

V

JIDE ALADEJOBI-                                            RESPONDENT

DIRECTION:

On the 23^rd April 2008, this committee delivered its direction concerning the respondent. On 5^th June 2008, the respondent caused the said directions to be set aside on the grounds that he was not given every opportunity to defend himself as preserved in section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.`

Rehearing of the complaint against the respondent began on 26^th July 2010. The complaint read to the respondent reads as follows:

"Jide Aladejobi as Counsel to Alhaji Salin Gbolagade, on or about the Year 2001, conspired with the said Alhaji Salin Gbolagade to draft and execute a 10 Year Lease Agreement purportedly 'On behalf of Mrs. Victoria Akniyele Aliu (the Petitioner) in respect of the Petitioner's Property situate at No 52 Western Avenue. Surulere, Lagos with the intent to interfere with the Petitioner's ownership rights over the Property, all contrary to Rules 24, 28 and 49(a) & (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession and Section J2 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1990as amended."

The respondent denied any liability.

The lead senior counsel for the complainant Sunday Ameh Esq indicated that he had two witnesses and was ready to proceed with the hearing of the matter.

The first witness gave his evidence as follows:-

"My name is Abubakar Ibrahirn Maude. I am the Secretary of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers. I live at No. 36 T.O.S- Benson Crescent Utako District Abuja. As the Secretary I receive Petition from the NBA wherein a prima facie case of Professional Misconduct has been shown against a Legal Practitioner. In respect of the Respondent I received a Petition against the Respondent dated 16^th March, 2005 1 will be able to identify it because it has been in my custody. This is the complaint of 46 pages which I received from the NBA.

I seek to tender the complaint in evidence."

Agabi SAN: No objection.

Committee: Admitted in evidence as exhibit Al- A46.

PW 1: Exhibit A8 is a letter from Mike Omonnan & Co dated 1^st December, 2003 titled forging of lease agreement by Mr. Jide Aladejobi- On receipt of exhibit A1-A46, I made copies for the Chairman and Members of this Committee. I also served

copy on the Respondent. Exhibit A2 is a letter dated is" June, 2.004 addressed to the Respondent titled Complaint of Professional Misconduct. The letter is Signed by Dele Adeshina General Secretary of the NBA.

Cross examination-Agabi SAN: None.

PW2: My name is Mike Omonnan. I live in Lagos. I practice at No. 11 Olowo Street Ikeja. I am a Legal Practitioner. I know Dr. Mrs. Victoria Akinyele Aliu. Mrs. Victoria Aliu contacted me sometimes in 2003 to write a Petition against the Respondent. Mrs. Victoria Aliu is about 86 years old and when she realized she could not come to give evidences she gave me Power of Attorney to come on her behalf, I can identify the Power of Attorney this is the Power of Attorney.

Ameh SAN: I seek to tender the Power of Attorney in evidence.

Agabi SAN: No objection.

COMMITTEE: Admitted as exhibit B.

PW1: I can identify the Petition because it has my signature and is dated 1st December, 2003. I see exhibit A8-A46: Exhibit A8 - All read. Annexure 1 is exhibit A 12 annexure 2 is exhibit A 14, annexure 3 is exhibit A 14, annexure 4 is exhibit A23, annexure 5 is exhibit A24, annexure 6 is exhibit A29, annexure 7 is exhibit A31, annexure 8 is exhibit A37, annexure 9 is exhibit A44. When the matter came up before the direction that was set aside was given, the Respondent approached the Petitioner and apologized. He wrote a letter to that effect. The Petitioner directed me to write an application for withdrawal of the matter but our application was refused.

Cross examination-Agabi SAN: All I did was to write the Petition that I tendered. All I wrote was that I was consulted and I wrote what I was told by my client.

Re-Exam-Ameh SAN: Nil.

The respondent gave evidence and he was cross examined as follows:-

RW1: My name is Babajide Aladejobi. I live at No 18 kogberegbe Street, Isolo, Lagos. I am a Legal Practitioner. I have been a Legal Practitioner since 22/10/1987. I know the Complainant. I know the Petitioner to the Complainant I got to know him when he Petitioned against me. He is PW2. He wrote the Petition on behalf of one Victoria Akinyele. Victoria Akinyele is not before this Committee. She has never been before this Committee. I was reported by Victoria Akinyele to the police. The report against me to the Police was that of Conspiracy to forge a lease: Following the Complainant the Police insisted that. I drop the representation. The Police Police insisted that I drop the representation. The Police charged me to Court for Conspiracy and forgery of the lease. It is the same charge as the one I am standing trial. The charge went on trial before the Hon Justice O. GbajaBiamila of the Lagos High Court. The trial has been concluded. The Court discharged and acquitted me. I have a certified copy of the Judgment.

We seek to tender it in evidence.

Ameh SAN: No objection.

Committee: Admitted and marked as Exhibit Rl.

RW1: The Complaint against me was that I conspired with Alhaji Gbolagade to forge the Lease. I know Alh. Gbolagade. He was my Client. I did not conspire with Alh. Gbolagade to forge the Lease. I have never been charged with any Professional Misconduct before now. I have been in practice since Oct. 1987 I did not drive any profit from what was alleged to have been done.

Cross examination Ameh SAN-: I was before the Committee when PW1 and PW2 testified PW1 tendered many documents which were admitted as exhibits. I see exhibit A 12-A 18. I have seen the exhibit before now. I see exhibit Rl, last paragraph of exhibit Rl read.

Learned counsel for the respondent Kanu Agabi SAN filed his written address on 20th July 2010 but the learned counsel for the complainant did not file any address.

The facts of the complaint against the respondent as laid before the committee are as follows:-

The petitioner, Mrs. Victoria Akinyele Aliu, an 86 year old lady is the owner of property situate and lying at No 52, Western Avenue, Surulere, Lagos, Lagos State. Between 1996 and 1997, a part of the said property w-as let to one Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade for a sum of600.000.00 per annum by her niece while she was in America. Later on her return on 14th December 1997, the petitioner entered an agreement with the said Alhaji Gbolagade appointing the latter as caretaker of the property7 to collect rents and eject tenants currently owing arrears of rents.

The agreement also let to Alhaji Gbolagade the first floor of the building consisting of seven rooms for office A13-14. Alhaji Gbolagade engaged the services of the respondent for the purpose of filing court processes at the rent tribunal to eject the debtor tenants. The tenants were ejected. Alhaji Gbolagade remained a tenant in the said property.

Sometime in May 2002, the petitioner was informed that the tenant/caretaker Alhaji Gbolagade was making arrangement to sell the property to some Lebanese. She called the firm of Abimbola Isikalu & co, Legal Practitioners, to write and warn Alhaji Gbolagade from selling her property.

The respondent by a letter dated 8^th May 2002 in response wrote to Abimbola Isikalu & co wherein he said:

“Yours dated 3rd May 2002 and titled as same addressed to our client has been referred to us for necessary action. Permit us to say with respect that your client did not reveal facts very material to the transaction between herself and our client to you.

The brief gist of the matter is that our chambers undertook a couple of years back the recovery of the premises in question from tenants and in consideration of the renovation/repairs carried out by our client, a ten year lease (copy enclosed) was executed in his favour with the expiration being 28th February 2011.

We are therefore to assume that our client has no intention whatsoever of alienating your clients as to do this would be illegal."

The petitioner knew and saw the attached lease agreement for the first time. The agreement dated 1^st day of March 2001 shows the owner as Mrs. V.A Aliu of 20 Adeniyi Jones Ikeja, Lagos, the home address of the petitioner: She was described as the owner and Alhaji Saliu Gbolagade as the developer. The  agreement demised the property for a term of 10 years beginning from 1st day March 2001 and terminating un 28th February 2011. The respondent was me maker of the said leasehold between the petitioner and Alhaji Gbolagade. He received his instructions from his client Alhaji Gbolagade only.

The matter was reported to the police and the petitioner denied entering into the said agreement with Alhaji Gbolagade. She denied the signature on the  agreement, all these to the knowledge of the respondent. Indeed, the police arrested the respondent, conducted signature analysis by forensic science laboratory of the Nigerian police and found that the signature on the leasehold agreement prepared by the respondent, allegedly that of the petitioner was not that of the petitioner.

The respondent as counsel to Alhaji Gbolagade instituted a civil suit at the Lagos High Court in suit No ID/ 1603/2002 between Alhaji Saliu Abolade Gbolagade and Mrs Victoria Adun Akinycle (aka Mrs. Adun Aliu). In the affidavit in support of a motion for Interlocutory injunction dated 25^th September 2002, one Mrs. Layamadi deposed 10 facts as follows:

4. That the plaintiff proceeded to give effect to the defendants instruction and instituted several court actions at the Surulere bank Tribunal for recovery of possession of the premises whereas the defendant in fact appeared in some of the actions as witness on the invitation of the plaintiffs solicitors.

5. that the upon due conclusion of the assignment the defendant in consideration of the sum shall be expected by the plaintiff to carry out substantial renovation on the premises granted to the plaintiff a ten year lease in ond over the said premises on 1st day of March 2001. Now shown to me and marked EXHIBIT is a copy of the lease."

In the respondent's statement to the police dated 08/01/03.agreed that he prepared the agreement in original and counterpart. That the petitioner signed the agreement as she had many signatures as the same signature had been used on other documents. The respondent admits that he caused her former office clerk to witness the signature of the petitioner. He was unable to submit to the police the said clerk.

The respondent admitted that he instructed, his wife, who is a lawyer in chambers, to sign the document as the maker. Her name is M.T. Aladejobi (Mrs.) Alhaji Gbola.gade in his statement to the police dated 06/01/03 wrote "The purported agreement was made by my lawyer Banister Jide Aladejobi" From the common evidence before the committee, the respondent and his client were charged to Magistrate court of Lagos state on 9 counts charge ranging from forgery, stealing, conspiracy, fraudulently forging a lease agreement, attempted murder, forgery of receipts, willful and unlawful damages to properties etc.

Before this committee, the respondent admitted the report of the criminal allegations to the police. That he was charged to court and tried by Hon. Justice Gbajabamila of Lagos High court. He was discharged and acquitted. He tendered the CTC of the judgment.

He denied being the Legal Practitioner to Mrs. Victoria Adun Aliu, the petitioner.

The respondents address is anchored on three main issues;

1. That he, having been tried discharged and acquitted, he cannot be charged and tried by this committee for the same offence. He relied on the principle of double jeopardy in criminal proceedings and section 36 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and the decision of the Supreme Court in N1GRE1AN ARMY v. MAUDE AM1NU KANO (2010) unreported. A copy of the judgment was not made available neither was the full case number and the date of the decision disclosed.

2. That the offence charged was not proved at all or not proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. He laid emphasis on the two words "conspiracy" and "forgery”. He relied on the principle of hearsay to ask this committee to disregard the evidence of the second complainant's witness.

3. He finally addressed on the intendments of Rules 24 and 49 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the legal Profession and stated that none of the rules is relevant and if relevant, none was proved against him.

The committee in consideration of this matter is of the opinion that this is a case where the various documentary evidence admitted in evidence speak on and for all matters in controversy. However, the parties are agreed on these important facts.

1. That the petitioner Mrs. Victoria Adun Akinyele Aliu was and is still the lawful owner of the property situate and lying at No 52 Western Avenue, Surulere Lagos.

2. That on or about the 14/01/1997, Mrs Aliu entered into an agreement with one AlhaJi Chief Saliu Abolade Gbolagade to act as caretaker of her property at No 52, Western Avenue, Surulere, Lagos.

3. That Alhaji Gbolagade employed the services of the respondent to repossess from tenants occupying the above properties vacancies through litigation instituted at Rent Tribunal in Lagos.

4. That the respondent as counsel for Alhaji Gbolagade was aware of the agreement between the petitioner and Alhaji Gbolagade.

5. That the respondent prepared a 10 year lease agreement between 'the petitioner and Alhaji Gbolagade on the said property situate at No 52 Western Avenue, Surulere Lagos.

6. The petitioner did not instruct the respondent neither did she append her signature to the said lease hold agreement in the office or presence of the respondent.

7. The respondent caused his law clerk to witness the purported signature of the petitioner who was claimed to have signed as lessor.

8. The respondent caused and authorized his wife, a legal practitioner in his chambers to sign the franking column on the said leasehold agreement as if she was the maker of the agreement.

9. That when the petitioner became aware of plans by Alhaji Gbolagade to sell the properties, she caused a law firm of lsekalu to write a warning letter to Alhaji Gbolagade.

10. The respondent acting as Legal Practitioner to Alhaji Gbolagade replied to state that a 10 year lease hold agreement was executed between the petitioner and his client Alhaji Gbolagade, he forwarded a copy of the lease agreement.

11. The petitioner disputed the leasehold agreement and reported the matter to the police.

12. The police investigated the matter and charged the respondent and Alhaji Gbolagade to Magistrate Court for various criminal offences.

13. While the matter was on, the respondent instituted a suit- on behalf of his client against the petitioner and sought to restrain the petitioner from disturbing his client from peaceful occupation and enjoyment of the premises.

14. The respondent was later arraigned before a Lagos High Court for various crimes relating to the leasehold agreement.

15. The respondent was later discharged and acquitted.

The first issue to be settled in this matter is the jurisdiction and competence of this committee to hear the complaint against the respondent. It has become trite that this committee is not and should not be equaled and regarded as one of the courts established under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. No it is not. It is not a Tribunal established under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. No it is not. It is indeed a fact finding committee established by the Legal Practitioners Act to inquire into and deal with all complaints or allegations of professional misconduct against any Legal Practitioner in the performance of his duties and responsibilities as a legal practitioner.

Rule 1 of the Legal Practitioners Act 2007 gives the general guide line to the duties of the committee- It says:

"A lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct and. shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner. So where a legal practitioner acts contrary to any of the rules his conduct may be inquired into because such conduct is unprofessional or unbecoming of a legal practitioner”.

The committee has no competence or jurisdiction to try any criminal' offence; it is the function of Courts established under the law. The committee cannot therefore retry any matter or criminal allegation already decided upon by any court of law.

In the case of CHARLES OKIKE v. THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE (2005) NWLR 471, the Supreme Court at pages 518 and 520 laid to rest any misgivings as to the jurisdiction of this committee. The Court per Uwais C.J.N. said

"The legal Practitioners Disciplinary tribunal is not a tribunal but a fact finding and house cleaning body to maintain, discipline and decorum in the legal profession. It is a committee to investigate and make recommendations. It is not a tribunal or court of law. It is a quasi- administrative body and because of the strategic importance of the legal profession to administration of justice, it must maintain the highest standard discipline."

The submission of the respondent that this committee has no power to try or retry' him on criminal allegations on which the High court of Lagos State had tried and acquitted him is correct. There is no charge before the committee. The committee in the circumstances discountenanced all the submissions on competence and jurisdiction to try crimes under the Criminal Code Act or the principle of double jeopardy in criminal proceedings and section 36 of the 1999 Constitution. Members of the committee are Legal Practitioners like the respondent.

The committee believes that the respondent acted as a Legal Practitioner in all the transactions in question. He as counsel is deemed to know the rights and limits of authority and obligations of his client Alhajl Gbolagade arising from the agreement of 14 /12/97. He did not at any time deny knowledge of the content of the agreement. He admitted the making of the leasehold agreement allegedly between the petitioner and Alhaji Gbolagade, his client, dated 12/02/2001. He at no time told the committee he ever took instruction from the owner of the property the petitioner. He never met the petitioner the owner of the property upon which he created encumbrances. He had no letter of authority instructing him as counsel to prepare the lease agreement.

The respondent never produced any written instruction from the petitioner. He followed only the instructions of his client. Even when the petitioner disowned the purported lease agreement, he maintained a strong resistance. When the matter was reported to the police, he asserted in his statement to the police that the petitioner signed the lease agreement. He did not for once think twice rather he continued to assert and defend the rights of his client. He caused a civil action to be filed against the petitioner- He made his law clerk swore to an affidavit in support of the motion for injunction against the petitioner, the owner of the property.

This committee is strongly of the view that in the absence of written instructions from the petitioner, or written agreement between Alhaji Gbolagade and the petitioner on the 10 year lease, the respondent ought to have personally investigated or queried his client's instruction. He had a duty to take instruction from the owner of the property to be demised. He failed to do this.

Before this committee, the respondent did not make any efforts to prove the truth of his instruction on the 10 year leasehold agreement he prepared. The signing of the agreement by the petitioner is very crucial on the evidence before us concerning the validity of the lease agreement.

The respondent did not produce Alhaji Gbolagade to appear before the committee. Indeed, the presence of Alhaji Gbolagade would have proved whether or not the lease was executed by the petitioner or not. The respondent had a duty as a legal practitioner to uphold the law, property guide his client and deal prudently with properties of persons, as improper advice or services is unethical and merit strong condemnation as unprofessional conduct.

The respondent had the primary duty to decipher where an instruction is founded upon deception, improper motive or fraud. In this case, the petitioner was not interviewed, she was not made, to write instructions, and the agreement was not executed in the presence of the respondent or any of his counsel. Rather, the agreement w-as allegedly signed by the petitioner and the respondent in the absence of the respondent and the respondent caused his clerk to sign as witness to the signature of the owner, while his wife, a Legal Practitioner was directed to sign the franking column. There is every reason to hold the respondent liable for improper conduct in the transaction. The committee expects the respondent to know his obligations in conveyancing matters. Particularly, when he was purportedly acting as counsel for both parties, one of whom is his close client.

The committee holds the view that the respondent took advantage of the old age of the petitioner to assist Alhaji Gbolagade in perpetrating conduct bordering on fraud on her because there was no instruction from the petitioner.

The committee believed that the respondent knew that Alhaji Gbolagade played fraud and deception on the petitioner and when he was discovered, he was, in our view, peeved by her audacity to report him to the police, here he resolved to swim through or sink with his client.

It is clearly, from the facts before us that the respondent exhibited indiscretion and an abuse of the privilege position of a Legal Practitioner. It is indeed oppressive on the petitioner that the respondent took out a summons and injunctive application to restrain her from disturbing or displacing Alhaji Gbolagade from the property.

It is clear to the committee that the respondent was deeply involved with his client to deny the petitioner the possession and the fruits of her property for l0 years and this is unfortunate.                    

The respondent has argued that the complainant has not proved the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The submission is without substance. All the documents made available to the committee spoke with a loud voice the inequities and shameful conducts of the respondent. The documents alone without oral evidence have conclusively proved the full liability of the respondent.

How could the respondent prepare a lease agreement when the lessor never instructed him? Why would the respondent not request execution of the agreement in his office to be witnessed by him and any of his legal practitioners including his wife? Why did the respondent ask his clerk to witness the petitioner's signature when it was false, untrue and unprofessional? Why did the respondent not at the time the matter became an issue under the police investigation not properly advice his client? Why did he pursue the innocent petitioner with a civil suit knowing the full implication?

Every legal practitioner has the duty to put right all matters which appear deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable. The committee considers this matter as the height of irresponsibility, show of insensitivity, brute unconscionable conduct and a grave odium on the dignity honor and integrity of the legal profession.

Hon. Justice Chukwudifu Oputa CON, Justice of the Supreme Court, in the case of ATANO V. A.G. BENDEL STATE (1988) 1 NWLR (pt 71) 454 at 480, lamented the moral decay in our society. He said painfully...

That a Bank Manager, appointed to manage and entrusted with the Banks money, should steal the very money entrusted to him shows how deep the 'get rich quick' virus has eaten into our societal fabric. That an Accountant, appointed and paid to keep the books of his Bank, will bum those books to destroy all evidence of his theft looks grossly Machiavellian. And yet this is what one sees every day. It is the re-occurring decimal of theft followed by arson. This raises a social question-are we not now paying very dearly for the wrong emphasis we have placed on the mere acquisition of wealth not minding how it is acquired? After all, the view of criminology is that the society prepares the crime and the criminal merely commits it. Do we not need urgently a re-orientation and a irons valuation of our value system, especially our views on money? That is the question for our society.

What gave Oputa pains and agonies of the heart has crept into the Legal Profession. We now live in times where Bank Managing Directors admit to stealing several billions of Naira. Poor depositors money; agreed to forfeit to the state properties scattered all over the world valued at several billions of Naira. Here is a country where minimum wage is on1y N6,500,00 per month and recently increased to N18, 000.00 and per capital, one of the West in the world. The Legal Profession should be the guardian of the nation's conscience. Legal Practitioners by their training and privileged position stand as vanguard against corruption, fraud, oppression and be the epitome of all that is virtuous, honourable and worthy of emulation. The respondent represents the class that is completely different from this. He does not deserve to be a Legal Practitioner and member of the most honourable, learned and respected practice of Law.

FINDINGS

The committee finds that the respondent willfully, recklessly and without due regards to the interest of the petitioner Mrs. Victoria Adun Akinyele Aliu prepared a 1 0 year lease without instruction, caused fake execution of the lease and acted in oppressive manner on the petitioner.

The committee finds the conduct of the respondent in the whole complaint as an infamous conduct in a professional respect proved.

The committee appreciates the maturity, industry and co-operation of Kanu Agabi S.A.N. and Sunday Ameh Esq. S.A.N who are honourable members of the Legal Profession. They conducted this proceeding diligently and acted manners worthy of emulation.

DIRECTION

1. The committee hereby directs that the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court strike off the name of the respondent from the rolls.

2. That the direction be brought to the notice of all Chief Judges of the Federation, the Federal High Court and the Federal Capital Territory.

3. That this direction be brought to the notice and enforcement of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, and all the chairmen of all the branches of the Nigerian Bar Association.

Hon. Umaru Eri OFR

Chairman